skullman80 wrote:I don't think another lockout happens. I'm not even slightly concerned about it to be honest.

I feel like I'm general realistic, maybe even leaning towards optimism with these things, but IDK... the combination of the owners definitely needing a break from what the current structure is / Fehr represnting the players has me very uneasy

The "offer" is just a starting point, and we don't know what Fehr is demanding, could be 89%, No entry level contracts, UFA after first year and x-mas break from 1 December to 15 of January. It is just the first offer, not even Bettman believes that will be accepted.

From my understanding the NHLs first proposal is in line with the NFL and NBAs first offer. They all asked for everything under the sun, so its no suprise the NHL followed the same road. Lets not read to much into this, this is how you workout a new deal. Its a give and take process.

helmespc wrote:There's no way the NHL/NHLPA is insane enough to go through another lockout... losing an entire season really hurt the league's reputation, and the NHL can ill afford to give the KHL any leverage....

The demands of the owners in this negotiation don't startle me as much as it did once i looked at how the NFL and NBA did theirs and i really think this whole thing now is PR by the NHLPA to make the owners look bad. But, if you don't think that this league would lock itself out again, you have another thing coming. Remember, this is the NHL we are talking about here. The same league that goes out of its way to pander to gritty no-name players and turns it's blind eye to head shots and has no consistency regarding any sort of discipline. The NHL's worst enemy has always been itself and if you think they won't shoot themselves again, you're dead wrong.

I expect we won't be playing hockey until about Thanksgiving. At the earliest...

columbia wrote:Also, they don't have to sign a deal before the season starts.....because they can just continue under the old arrangement, while working on a new one.

That's the line which the NHLPA will give until the owners lock them out. I don't see them playing while trying to work out a new agreement. With Fehr on the NHLPA side, don't expect the union to give an inch. This is probably headed for a some type of work stoppage, the length depends on how much, and how quickly the owners cave in.

Rylan wrote:I don't care about the players. I am just thinking on the owners side of rationalization.

Why not?

There are a lot of bubble/AHL players that barely make more than a well payed secretary, who sacrifice their body (and perhaps their brain) and have to find another way of life in their late 20s. Sometimes earlier.

Agreed.

We ALL must realize, that we are in a fantasy when we think teams/players, care about fans. They care about your money, and want you happy for your money. But, they don't actually care. As long as you are happy enough to spend your money, they are fine with whatever problems you have with the team, organization, etc., etc. With that in mind the only time during sports labor disputes that I become sickened by either side, is when they try to use the fans as leverage. The spout hollow lies about their concerns of the fans, when it is obvious they don't care. I say just get down to business, do some actually work in negotiating and not mud slinging, and leave the fans out of it. If in the ends, the league, and players end up with a good product, worth the money to watch, people will watch, and pay money.

So, the point is that the players have to think business, and yes, try to get the best deal that gets them the most money, without damaging the cash flow (fans wallets), and visa/versa with the owners. The owner....well, the owners are insanely rich people of this countries oligarchy, so while they are trying to maintain good business, there are other things that a common man cannot fathom that come into play as well. But, I don't live in the oligarchy so I have no idea what they do or want or need on that planet.

My final point, all those poor kids playing hockey ? Nobody has a gun to their head. This is there choice, and as this point if they don't know the risks, and the how this all works, then they are clueless.

This is a business interaction. With money being the end all, be all when it all comes down to it. Hopefully both sides will actually negotiate, and work, instead of mud sling, and use pressure through deadlines in hope the work will be done for them. Nothing more annoying then a sports labor dispute where months go by, and nothing is done because of a deadline that will be used for leverage. It is a complete waste of everyone's time.

helmespc wrote:There's no way the NHL/NHLPA is insane enough to go through another lockout... losing an entire season really hurt the league's reputation, and the NHL can ill afford to give the KHL any leverage....

The demands of the owners in this negotiation don't startle me as much as it did once i looked at how the NFL and NBA did theirs and i really think this whole thing now is PR by the NHLPA to make the owners look bad. But, if you don't think that this league would lock itself out again, you have another thing coming. Remember, this is the NHL we are talking about here. The same league that goes out of its way to pander to gritty no-name players and turns it's blind eye to head shots and has no consistency regarding any sort of discipline. The NHL's worst enemy has always been itself and if you think they won't shoot themselves again, you're dead wrong.

I expect we won't be playing hockey until about Thanksgiving. At the earliest...

+1.

That is why the owners always have the upper hand. Most hockey players need their paychecks to pay their bills.

Owners have enough money to stop working now, and live about 10 lifetimes without lifting a finger. Time is always on the owner's side. Not to mention, it will never happen tho, if the whole league collapsed, the owners can run businesses elsewhere. Hockey players need an arena, and fans, in order to make money.

OMG... I can't believe someone on here suggested that some of these players may have to get real jobs if hockey doesn't work out for them... ahhhhhhhhh... ah yes I want fries with that... the tragedy here is the value society places on athletes... sniff... I won't miss hockey one bleeping second if there's a lockout... there's so much else to do in life than be concerned bout bickering millionaires and billionaires... really?

owners cant make money without players playing for their team/the sport

players cant make money without owners owning teams, arenas, whatever it takes to have a place for them to play

goes both ways, I don't understand why its not 50/50 spit in every single sport or at least 51% for the owners because there's no financial backing/starting of anything without them putting money in first.

Why can't both sides agree on 50/50, not just in NHL but really every sport...

I don't anticipate an 82 game season this year, to the extent that I am not making my annual "business" trip to Pittsburgh in October. That said, I'd be very surprised if they shut down the season again. Both sides realize the long term damage that would result.

Also, I heard that the owners want to redefine what revenues are considered "hockey related". This could be a much bigger sticking point that the percentage.

Zach6668 wrote:Well, the floor was instituted to make the gap between all of the teams as small as possible. Essentially, they wanted the smaller market teams to spend more, in order to be more competitive, while restricting the bigger market teams as well.

The problem with that, is that poorly managed small market teams will be losers no matter what they do (both financially and on the ice).

The thing about that, however, is even if you get a team, like say Nashville, that turns it around, is very well run, successful enough on the ice to start to build a fan base, you have to remember it's only been 7 years since the last lockout. Creating a fan base is a very long term thing, and even with the smashing success Nashville has had as a small market, they're still not necessarily assured of cultivating long term fans.

So, basically, what I'm saying, is that while lowering the floor looks good, it's really a short-term fix. It allows some of the weaker, more poorly managed smaller markets to show a profit, potentially, in the short run, but it would have much more devastating effects in the long run. We'd have the last 10 years of Florida's existence, perpetually. Weak teams, spending no money, and bringing in no fans.

Florida finally got to the playoffs last season, and now they'll start to draw more fans casually. If they have another strong season, maybe win a round, or win the division again, then you see that attendance and interest start to creep up a little more. It's a long, slow process in the non-traditional markets, especially those with a history of being awful.

The Panthers, for example, may lose money in the short-term, but all of it is going towards the long-term goal of developing a fan base.

So, yeah, widening the gap between the cap and the floor is a short term solution, and a poor one, at that, IMHO. You'll likely end up with more teams spending (relatively) no money, with no long term ability to attract a long term fan base.

The only thing I can say is that not every team is poorly managed that isnt doing well financially. Some yes, of course but not all. That is the problem with sports, so many factors. The Pens are selling tickets and have a ridiculous arena deal and its not like they are cashing huge profit checks every year.

There are only so many big viable markets, so many good players, what the league does matters etc.

I mean the Pirates make piles of money as do the Bengals.

It goes pretty deep and if there is a cap and still issues it needs to be looked at closely.

Nizzy wrote:owners cant make money without players playing for their team/the sport

players cant make money without owners owning teams, arenas, whatever it takes to have a place for them to play

goes both ways, I don't understand why its not 50/50 spit in every single sport or at least 51% for the owners because there's no financial backing/starting of anything without them putting money in first.

Why can't both sides agree on 50/50, not just in NHL but really every sport...

The owners can certainly make money without the players. The money won't be maid with the sports team they own, but they will make money from one of their other endevors.

Here is the reality and my take on it. The NHL has KILLED it since the last CBA. The reason they have to drop the percentage is that revenues are 33%+ more than they were in 2005 and that 57% of the $3.2B revenue mark means salaries are getting completely ridiculous. I think the NHL just wants to cool it before some teams get buried. The players know that fewer teams means fewer opportunities so they have a direct interest in keeping teams from folding.

I think they will concede on the percentage and the length of contracts as those are getting so stupid it is making the league look ridiculous. I think they will not concede on the other points although arbitration is not the best route for anyone.